Posted on 07/23/2010 10:41:23 AM PDT by Starman417
We knew the Obama administration didn't have a case against Arizona....now it appears, at first glance, that the federal judge to decide the case has some serious concerns over the Federal suit:
A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement."Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration
Read more at floppingaces.net...
I guess some are saying that the ultimate outcome of this case is that AZ will be allowed to question people regarding their citizenship/residency status but won’t be allowed to punish/detain illegals in any way at all for being illegal.If this *is* the outcome it would be a 99.9% victory for Hussein & Friends.
Hopeful, but you can’t always tell. She knows she is doing this for the record.
If the state cannot enforce federal regualtions then why would they ever arrest a person for whom there is a federal warrant outstanding?
Why uphold any federal law using state resources?
Rather than this question: “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?”
I would have asked: “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have ILLEGALLY entered or remained in the United States?”
Just me......
Then again, were I the sitting judge, I would have thrown the Feds out of my courtroom for bringing a frivolous suit to begin with.
For the judge’s professional reputation, if she doesn’t find for Arizona, she will eternally be seen as a party pumpkin judge. Lets wait and see if her allegence is to her party or to her profession. Given she is a Clinton appointee I don’t really expect much in the way of professionalism. OTH, she may very well be taking orders from Hillary, so who knows how that angle works out?
Gee....maybe they should have secured the border...
That’s what appeals are for.
The administration actually thinks that sanctuary cities do not preempt or interfere with federal law, yet this law does. Don’t look for logic or consistency. They go by the idea that reality is what they say it is for any one situation, and there are no conflicts. It’s a classic example of Orwellian doublethink.
I'm not a lawyer but my hunch is that the main problem (in the eyes of leftists) is the punishment aspect.I think the left would (rightly) claim victory if the final ruling is that AZ can *question* but cannot *punish*...which,it would appear,is what some folks (who presumably know the law and the courts) are saying will happen.
(Yes,I understand that leftist bias could mean that these "folks" are wrong)
She’s being very careful in her words so as not to discriminate. You treat anyone stopped under the law all the same. You check’em all.
Drug laws are federal. So is conterfeiting. etc.
So the fed can burden the states with unfunded mandates, but the states can't burden the fed by helping enforce the fed's own laws?
I discussed this case a few days ago, with a Constitutional Law professor.
He said the federal government’s case claims it is a question of “prosecutorial discretion.”
Immigration is federal responsibility, and if the feds don’t want to enforce it, that is their perogative.
I will add: These days the Obama administration is saying they want to enforce immigration by focusing on the highest priority—criminals.
Arizona can argue the state effort is complimentary, aimed at criminal aspects.
You have misconstrued their position. They think that sanctuary cities do not preempt or interfere with federal policy, and, unfortunately, they are right. Sanctuary cities have codified current federal policy.
Hey..obama wants them out of his “law”...so they should just get out.
We could do that for all of the federal laws....like mandatory zerocare, “finance” reform, taxes, epa regs...why bother? let the feds enforce their own laws without state involvement or compliance....
When this was about to go to courst, I think it was Pelosi who said that Arizona would be entitled to funding if the law went through.
Good. Tucson can become a “sanctuary city” for drug dealers and counterfeiters.
I have an idea....why not let ALL the mexicans who WORK and PAY TAXES to stay here....one condition, they can’t vote!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.